cman:If I may be so bold to speak up, if you must greenlight Town Hall links, can you admins please add some humor to the headline? That is what Fark is supposed to be, ya know. This isnt strange "not news" like a pilot crashing his plane while mooning another; this is just some petty bullshiat crying

They will continue to get greenlit as long as farklibs continue to get all butthurt about it and feel the need to go into the thread and whine about it. How much discussion is there in this thread about the actual content of the article vs. mewling about the headline or the fact that another Townhall link got greened? A clicky is a clicky. We're up to 100 comments already. Success!!!

Talondel:Both parties are bad, so stop pretending otherwise and hold your nose while you vote for one of them, or vote for Gary Johnson.

Ah, you're one of those types. Nevermind, then; no point in debating against a brick wall.

/If you think that the Libertarian party isn't a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party, you might be an idiot.//And if you think that they give a rat's burst haemorrhoid about your civil rights, you are definitely an idiot.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:magusdevil: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Vodka Zombie: Whenever I see someone use the term "Democrat party" or its equivalent, it's like a beacon demonstrating that whoever wrote or spoke that is simply not worth talking to because they are nothing more than a sluggish, little troll.

This is America, Subby. We speak English here.

Not really. Not anymore. Got turned down for a cashier job a few months ago 'cause I didn't speak Spanish as many languages as others who were also applying for the job.

Well, no. The reason given is that they already had 4 employees who only spoke Spanish, so they needed someone who could communicate with them.

Nice try, though.

Gee, do you think they could have been illegals undocumented?

If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

magusdevil:If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

magusdevil:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: magusdevil: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Vodka Zombie: Whenever I see someone use the term "Democrat party" or its equivalent, it's like a beacon demonstrating that whoever wrote or spoke that is simply not worth talking to because they are nothing more than a sluggish, little troll.

This is America, Subby. We speak English here.

Not really. Not anymore. Got turned down for a cashier job a few months ago 'cause I didn't speak Spanish as many languages as others who were also applying for the job.

Well, no. The reason given is that they already had 4 employees who only spoke Spanish, so they needed someone who could communicate with them.

Nice try, though.

Gee, do you think they could have been illegals undocumented?

If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Speaking as a hiring manager, the use of 'not bilingual' as a non-hiring reason is prevalent when you don't want to deal with people and tell them the real reason they're not being hired. Bad references, bad personal appearance, terrible work history. It's often easier to just tell them "oh gee, we would have hired you, but we need someone who speaks Spanish. Sorry."

Fluorescent Testicle:magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

magusdevil:Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

skullkrusher:magusdevil: Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

That's not entirely clear to me at this point... my previous post might have overreached. Hope they don't revoke my Law GED.

skullkrusher:magusdevil: Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

magusdevil:skullkrusher: magusdevil: Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

That's not entirely clear to me at this point... my previous post might have overreached. Hope they don't revoke my Law GED.

Fart_Machine:skullkrusher: magusdevil: Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

No, you can. Language proficiency isn't covered under FEHA.

But it is covered in the EEOC federally. However the EEOC seems to assume that discrimination against someone who only speaks English isn't even in the realm of possibility. So that probably could use some updating. Link

magusdevil:Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: magusdevil: Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

No, you can. Language proficiency isn't covered under FEHA.

But it is covered in the EEOC federally. However the EEOC seems to assume that discrimination against someone who only speaks English isn't even in the realm of possibility. So that probably could use some updating. Link

Fluorescent Testicle:Ah, you're one of those types. Nevermind, then; no point in debating against a brick wall.

/If you think that the Libertarian party isn't a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party, you might be an idiot.//And if you think that they give a rat's burst haemorrhoid about your civil rights, you are definitely an idiot

skullkrusher:if you think that the GOP owns a party whose sole impact is to take votes away from the GOP...

This. FT may be an idiot, or may be a west coaster who hasn't fully woken up yet.

As to those claiming a false equivalency, note that I did in fact give an option other than voting libertarian, which it to hold your nose and vote Democratic (or Republican, if that's your thing). But please stop telling me that because democrats are 'better' on civil liberties they deserve my vote. "Better" is not the same as "acceptable". It's possible for one party to be better (which makes them non equivalent) while still falling below an acceptable level. That's not a false equivalency, it's a recognition that neither party is acceptable.

As to the accusation I'm a 'brick wall not worth debating' you're a moron to make that assumption based on one line in one post that you apparently didn't even read completely. I vote D at least as often as I vote R, and far more often than I vote L or G or 3rd party not appearing in this election. But based on the platforms and recent track records, its obvious that neither of the two major parties gives a shiat about my vote, at least when it comes to civil liberties issues.

The only two things the Dems wanted to rush into their platform at the last minute was a reference to God and Jerusalem. Great, a lot of good that does me as an atheist. How about a last minute change to the platform to reintroduce the 2008 promises to end warrantless wiretapping and restore judicial review? Maybe a promise to stop targetted killings and end the practice of engaging in unlawful hostile actions without Congressional authorization? Presumably those don't get rushed in at the last minute because you don't want your platform to draw attention to the failures of your own candidate, or maybe it's because you never cared about them in the first place.

Also, some almost all of us have the 'luxury' of living in a state where our vote for president doesn't matter one bit. It's not 'throwing away your vote' to vote 3rd party, when your vote never mattered to begin with. If enough people in non-swing states actually started voting for 3rd parties, rather than going in with a 'don't waste your vote' mentality despite the fact that their vote is completely meaningless, then there would at least be a small chance that the major parties would have an incentive to modify their platforms to pick up those votes. Which is exactly why the 2008 platform had those civil liberties points in it (the Democrats knew that they could pick up libertarian votes after 8 years of Bush treating them like shiat).

If you don't give a shiat about civil liberties in presidential elections, that's fine, just say so. Alternately, I know many fine people who vote for Obama because they like his other positions and are willing to overlook his shortcomings on those issues. But stop trying to argue that the Democrats have done anything more than pay lip service to those issues when they've been out of power, and have been at least as bad as the Republicans on many of those issues when they're in power. The actual Democratic position on warrantless wiretaps, judicial review of domestic surveillance, sweeping executive authority, and undeclared wars may as well be "Those are dangerous powers for the President to have (when the President is Republican)."

qorkfiend:Talondel: Both parties are bad, so stop pretending otherwise and hold your nose while you vote for one of them, or vote for Gary Johnson.

This only makes sense if you honestly, actually believe there is not a single shred of difference between the two parties on every single policy issue.

No, it also makes sense if you live in any of the 44 states that have 0 chance of effecting the upcoming presidential election. A worthless vote is a worthless vote, no matter who it goes for. I'd rather see a rising trend in third party votes of all kings (L, G, whatever else) that express the actual dissatisfaction most people have with both parties, rather than people continuing the myth that a vote for a 3rd party is 'throwing away your vote'.

magusdevil:Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: magusdevil: Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

you can't refuse to hire someone because they don't speak English in CA?

No, you can. Language proficiency isn't covered under FEHA.

But it is covered in the EEOC federally. However the EEOC seems to assume that discrimination against someone who only speaks English isn't even in the realm of possibility. So that probably could use some updating. Link

The statute has quite a bit of latitude for employers especially dealing with safety, customer service, and communication with employees who only speak English. You can't have a policy that prohibits employees from talking in a foreign language on breaks or during personal calls while at work, however when it comes to working with customers they can certainly have that policy.

GranoblasticMan:cubic_spleen: Since Fark now allows links from some mainstream Republican sites like Townhall, American Thinker, Breitbart, Free Republic, National Review Online, and Fox News, why don't the mods let us link to other mainstream Republican sites like Stormfront.org? Seems kind of, I don't know...arbitrary.

If the mods are going to promote some mainstream Republican sites, seems like they should promote all of them, including StormFront. After all, the Tea Partiers want to be heard, too. And with Obama likely to win in November, the Republicans will need as much publicity as they can get.

Talondel:qorkfiend: Talondel: Both parties are bad, so stop pretending otherwise and hold your nose while you vote for one of them, or vote for Gary Johnson.

This only makes sense if you honestly, actually believe there is not a single shred of difference between the two parties on every single policy issue.

No, it also makes sense if you live in any of the 44 states that have 0 chance of effecting the upcoming presidential election. A worthless vote is a worthless vote, no matter who it goes for. I'd rather see a rising trend in third party votes of all kings (L, G, whatever else) that express the actual dissatisfaction most people have with both parties, rather than people continuing the myth that a vote for a 3rd party is 'throwing away your vote'.

I never said voting 3rd party is "throwing away your vote". Choosing not to vote is throwing away your vote.

What you need to do is recognize that in this election cycle, either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will win. You can opt to not have a preference, but I think people who do that ignore the vast differences between Obama and Romney and instead choose to fixate on the few things they have in common. I find that line of thinking extremely short-sighted and, for lack of a better word, petulant.

magusdevil:Fluorescent Testicle: magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

I stand corrected. Failure to hire someone based on the language(s) they speak would be a clear and actionable violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Not exactly; it has to directly relate to the duties of the jobjerb. Working as a translator, would be an obvious exception.

Also, the number of greenlit far-right links spouting absolute BS is getting embarrasing. Fark you, Drew, and fark the shiatty state of Kentucky that spawned you. Seriously, I've met other pricks from that awful place on these here intertubes and every single one of them was a complete and utter douchebag.

qorkfiend:I never said voting 3rd party is "throwing away your vote". Choosing not to vote is throwing away your vote.

Yes you did. I never suggested I wouldn't vote, nor did I suggest that others shouldn't vote. I suggested that they should either hold their nose and vote for a mainstream party, or they should vote 3rd party. That's the statement you attacked. It is therefore obvious that you are not attacking 'choosing not to vote.' Either that, or you, like most of FARK, can't read and are attacking something I didn't say.

qorkfiend:What you need to do is recognize that in this election cycle, either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will win. You can opt to not have a preference, but I think people who do that ignore the vast differences between Obama and Romney and instead choose to fixate on the few things they have in common. I find that line of thinking extremely short-sighted and, for lack of a better word, petulant.

And what you need to recognize, which I've already said a couple of times, is that the vast majority of us have no hope of influencing the outcome of that election with our vote because of these two concepts called "math" and "the electoral college." It doesn't matter if I think there's a different between Obama or Romney or not, I have no hope of effecting that outcome. Therefore, there is nothing 'short sighted' about refusing to vote for either of them. Nothing will change in the short term. In the long term, the more people who vote third party the better, because that's the only way to force the existing parties to move from their current positions and into positions that address those parties concerns.

Holding your nose and voting Democratic, out of a misplaced belief that there's a slim chance your individual vote will actually matter, is the short-sighted position.

"Radical moral relativism"? WTF? Do these guys pick out random words in a dictionary and cram them together hoping that it magically makes them sound intelligent?

IMHO, the Democrats have a simple moral guideline, help people. On the other hand the Republicans have a complex moral system based on contradicting religious ideas (example 1 : fetus must be protected, once born they're on their own. example 2 : school vouchers for all, except for them muslims, sikh, jedi, etc.).

abb3w:yohohogreengiant: Does it appear to change to the observer depending upon acceleration in regard to the inertial reference frame?

No; it changes to the observer depending on the moral reference frame. Acceleration is semi-analogous to a shift in reference frame, but I'm not sure that the analogy extends all that well.

Would blue shift be liberal? Red shift conservative? Are you coming or going?

(I do enjoy your contributions to reason and your scientific literacy. I've lurked for years, but haven't posted much until recently, nor may I post much in the future for various reasons. Carry on, good sir)

FlashHarry:cman: If I may be so bold to speak up, if you must greenlight Town Hall links, can you admins please add some humor to the headline? That is what Fark is supposed to be, ya know. This isnt strange "not news" like a pilot crashing his plane while mooning another; this is just some petty bullshiat crying

no shiat.

there used to be a balance between the townhall, NRO, american thinker, WND, newsmax, blaze, caller, etc. links and ones from kos and tpm, but now it's pretty much just all-freeper all the time. i've been on fark for seven years - mainly because it was a balanced site (well, and teh boobies). but this really sucks.

Really? Balanced? Holy shiat. 19 of the top 24 articles in the green lit for all farkers politics tab currently are either pro-Obama, or making light of the GOP. There's your balance.

magusdevil:Just to be clear the Democratic Party is a United States political party. It is known for slightly left veering off the left cliff edge of a right hand hair-pin turn on a mountain side road, crashing in the valley below, WAAAAAAAAAY Left of left of center political positions and candidates.

The Democrat Party is what will be happening on November 7. It will be known for the drinking of delicious conservative tears from 50 gallon drums.

Fluorescent Testicle:magusdevil: If that's true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe you are lying), that sucks. And that's wrong, and you have my sympathy. Sorry if I was rubbing salt in a wound, I feel like a real dick now. As I should.

Don't. JAOCHG is a known troll and liar.

Total shock and amazement. I was so convinced and ready to send help, too.